Sect, iii THE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE, 1933 237
General Commission.1 This proposal was adopted, but considerable
difficulty was encountered in deciding on the order in which the
various items of work should be taken up. Herr Nadolny wished to
reserve for later consideration the questions which were raised by
the sections of the British proposals relating to the replacement of
the disarmament chapters of the Peace Treaties and to the 'realiza-
tion of qualitative equality9, and he suggested that attention should
be concentrated on concrete questions of reduction of armaments and
in the first place on the problems of land war material. The Italian
delegate also thought that questions relating to material should be
given precedence, whereas Monsieur Paul-Boncour was in favour of
taking effectives first. The Bureau finally decided to refer to the
Political Commission the questions of an affirmation against resort
to force and of European mutual assistance, together with other
security questions arising out of the French plan and the discussion
on that plan; to postpone consideration of the remainder of the
general questions mentioned in the British programme; and to leave
it to the General Commission to decide in what order it should deal
with the various problems submitted for its consideration.
This debate on procedure was interesting because it showed France
and Germany manoeuvring for position on a matter which was to
prove a serious obstacle to progress during the next few weeks.
The proposal for the standardization of the military forces of the
Continental European states on the basis of universal short-term
service formed an integral part of the French plan, and the French
delegation held that it would be useless to discuss questions relating
to the armaments of the military forces of France and other countries
until the nature and size of those forces had been determined. The
French Government had hoped that this part of their proposals
would prove acceptable to Germany, whose representatives had
included a reduction in the period of military service stipulated in
the Peace Treaty among the desiderata which they had put forward
for consideration by the other Powers in the spring and summer
1 During the discussion, Monsieur Paul-Boncour made a statement on the
declaration of the llth December, 1932, which aroused much resentment in
Germany. He said that that declaration could not take the place of a decision
of the Disarmament Conference, and tliat France could only conceive of
equality of rights within an organization ensuring security. Herr Nadolny
replied to this by pointing out that the declaration of the yta December
formed the basis on which Germany had returned to the Conference, and he
liinted that any departure from its provisions would involve a second with-
drawal of the German delegation. It was subsequently denied in French
official quarters that Monsieur Paul-Boncour had intended in any way to
repudiate the declaration of the llth December.